Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, morphine, SecretSquirrel
JohnC wrote:are awful for FPS gaming purposes
Jon1984 wrote:JohnC wrote:are awful for FPS gaming purposes
I wouldn't be so radical about this. Its good enough for gaming for the majority of people.
JohnC wrote:Jon1984 wrote:JohnC wrote:are awful for FPS gaming purposes
I wouldn't be so radical about this. Its good enough for gaming for the majority of people.
"Good enough" is a very subjective definition and no one should settle for such quantity if the budget allows you to select an objectively better models
cynan wrote:If you don't wan't something larger than your current 24", but are willing to budget up to $1000, Dell's 24" 4K monitor is currently at $850.
JustAnEngineer wrote:Could he game at 1920x1080 and do his photo editing and general computing at 3840x2160?
Meadows wrote:JustAnEngineer wrote:Could he game at 1920x1080 and do his photo editing and general computing at 3840x2160?
Of course he could.
Chrispy_ wrote:Meadows wrote:JustAnEngineer wrote:Could he game at 1920x1080 and do his photo editing and general computing at 3840x2160?
Of course he could.
I actually think that on higher-dpi displays, non-native resolutions aren't too bad.
I've used 11.6" 1080p ultrabooks from Sony and Acer before, and there's no way that you can run games on their IGP at native resolution. When you're talking about 200ppi displays, dropping down to 720p is still quite decent ppi so it's not the unevenly blurred mess that it can be.
meerkt wrote:For input lag there's also http://www.displaylag.com/display-database/
Don't know how authoritative the site is.